US Air Force One Replacement - President-Elect Trump's View
The costs he complains about are not the OEM's fault. They are the additional mods required by the White House Military Office, perhaps for very good reasons. Want to lower the cost? Start taking away the add-ons. And then pay a ton more for them after delivery when the need for them becomes undeniable.
Like I said, he's a real long-term thinker. Get used to it.
The costs he complains about are not the OEM's fault.
If he shaves a few $ off what Boeing wants, well worth it.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,837
Received 2,805 Likes
on
1,195 Posts
Trouble is you are trying to shave money off the sticker price when the car model hasn't been designed and built yet.
It is Boeing we are talking about here and not a Mini
( which in case you didn't know, the price set when it came out was a figment of the manufacturers chairmans imagination and took no notice of costing and materials, he just said we will price it at this to go up against the Ford Anglia..
Ford bought one, stripped it down to the core parts and priced it up at rock bottom and even they couldn't build a Mini for what it was selling for. They lost on every car they sold at the start.... Here endeth the history lesson.)
It is Boeing we are talking about here and not a Mini
( which in case you didn't know, the price set when it came out was a figment of the manufacturers chairmans imagination and took no notice of costing and materials, he just said we will price it at this to go up against the Ford Anglia..
Ford bought one, stripped it down to the core parts and priced it up at rock bottom and even they couldn't build a Mini for what it was selling for. They lost on every car they sold at the start.... Here endeth the history lesson.)
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much to repaint a 757?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: PugetSound
Age: 76
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cost of new Air Force One planes may be a little more complex and difficult to manage than Mr Trump thinks.
The Puget Sound business press has a lot of information and dialogue about the cost of the new plane or planes. Most of the commenters, many of whom claim to be engineers or designers with Boeing, claim the following:
- Boeing sells a green 747-800i to Air Force at lowest available commercial price (a standard clause in most federal contracts)
- AF, Secret Service, NSA, CIA...??? specify the equipment that must be installed
- Boeing engineers work with equipment engineers to determine what mods must be done to basic airframe
- ... a circular process follows of design, engineer, modify,...etc
- Boeing provides technical skills at a fixed cost+ basis
- equipment providers contract with AF for cost of equipment
- Boeing works as an integrator with fixed cost for administration and real estate
Bottom Line - Boeing has very little control of final cost. They only control a few items:
1) Original airframe
2) Cost of their technical skill
3) Cost of overhead and real estate
The other big cost driver is the rapid change in technology: computer, communications, radar, weapons. At some point the installed technology must be frozen. But, the added cost is the installed flexibility to adapt to upcoming changes. Including that flexibility is initially costly but in the long run very cost effective.
I am not sure about the information. But, I did manage many large Federal IT projects that worked in a very similar fashion. I was the overall integrator but I was working with off the shelf hardware and software that the Feds acquired. I then worked with technical staff, some mine, some the Feds, some provided by 3rd party software vendors, to make it all work together.
And... the big unknowns were change orders a year or two into the contract. New hardware, new versions of software, new "required" functionality. Those were all enormous cost escalators and were outside the control of the original hardware and software vendors and me the integrator.
I worked on a Federal project (tightly tied to commercial aviation) that continued for more than five years at 10x the original cost and NEVER did meet any of the original requirements. Eventually technology had moved so far ahead of the project that it was abandoned at a cost of Billions of $$ with little useful result.
The Puget Sound business press has a lot of information and dialogue about the cost of the new plane or planes. Most of the commenters, many of whom claim to be engineers or designers with Boeing, claim the following:
- Boeing sells a green 747-800i to Air Force at lowest available commercial price (a standard clause in most federal contracts)
- AF, Secret Service, NSA, CIA...??? specify the equipment that must be installed
- Boeing engineers work with equipment engineers to determine what mods must be done to basic airframe
- ... a circular process follows of design, engineer, modify,...etc
- Boeing provides technical skills at a fixed cost+ basis
- equipment providers contract with AF for cost of equipment
- Boeing works as an integrator with fixed cost for administration and real estate
Bottom Line - Boeing has very little control of final cost. They only control a few items:
1) Original airframe
2) Cost of their technical skill
3) Cost of overhead and real estate
The other big cost driver is the rapid change in technology: computer, communications, radar, weapons. At some point the installed technology must be frozen. But, the added cost is the installed flexibility to adapt to upcoming changes. Including that flexibility is initially costly but in the long run very cost effective.
I am not sure about the information. But, I did manage many large Federal IT projects that worked in a very similar fashion. I was the overall integrator but I was working with off the shelf hardware and software that the Feds acquired. I then worked with technical staff, some mine, some the Feds, some provided by 3rd party software vendors, to make it all work together.
And... the big unknowns were change orders a year or two into the contract. New hardware, new versions of software, new "required" functionality. Those were all enormous cost escalators and were outside the control of the original hardware and software vendors and me the integrator.
I worked on a Federal project (tightly tied to commercial aviation) that continued for more than five years at 10x the original cost and NEVER did meet any of the original requirements. Eventually technology had moved so far ahead of the project that it was abandoned at a cost of Billions of $$ with little useful result.
Last edited by TacomaSailor; 12th Dec 2016 at 23:31.
The cost of new Air Force One planes may be a little more complex and difficult to manage than Mr Trump thinks.
The Puget Sound business press has a lot of information and dialogue about the cost of the new plane or planes. Most of the commenters, many of whom claim to be engineers or designers with Boeing, claim the following:
- Boeing sells a green 747-800i to Air Force at lowest available commercial price (a standard clause in most federal contracts)
- AF, Secret Service, NSA, CIA...??? specify the equipment that must be installed
- Boeing engineers work with equipment engineers to determine what mods must be done to basic airframe
- ... a circular process follows of design, engineer, modify,...etc
- Boeing provides technical skills at a fixed cost+ basis
- equipment providers contract with AF for cost of equipment
- Boeing works as an integrator with fixed cost for administration and real estate
Bottom Line - Boeing has very little control of final cost. They only control a few items:
1) Original airframe
2) Cost of their technical skill
3) Cost of overhead and real estate
The other big cost driver is the rapid change in technology: computer, communications, radar, weapons. At some point the installed technology must be frozen. But, the added cost is the installed flexibility to adapt to upcoming changes. Including that flexibility is initially costly but in the long run very cost effective.
I am not sure about the information. But, I did manage many large Federal IT projects that worked in a very similar fashion. I was the overall integrator but I was working with off the shelf hardware and software that the Feds acquired. I then worked with technical staff, some mine, some the Feds, some provided by 3rd party software vendors, to make it all work together.
And... the big unknowns were change orders a year or two into the contract. New hardware, new versions of software, new "required" functionality. Those were all enormous cost escalators and were outside the control of the original hardware and software vendors and me the integrator.
I worked on a Federal project (tightly tied to commercial aviation) that continued for more than five years at 10x the original cost and NEVER did meet any of the original requirements. Eventually technology had moved so far ahead of the project that it was abandoned at a cost of Billions of $$ with little useful result.
The Puget Sound business press has a lot of information and dialogue about the cost of the new plane or planes. Most of the commenters, many of whom claim to be engineers or designers with Boeing, claim the following:
- Boeing sells a green 747-800i to Air Force at lowest available commercial price (a standard clause in most federal contracts)
- AF, Secret Service, NSA, CIA...??? specify the equipment that must be installed
- Boeing engineers work with equipment engineers to determine what mods must be done to basic airframe
- ... a circular process follows of design, engineer, modify,...etc
- Boeing provides technical skills at a fixed cost+ basis
- equipment providers contract with AF for cost of equipment
- Boeing works as an integrator with fixed cost for administration and real estate
Bottom Line - Boeing has very little control of final cost. They only control a few items:
1) Original airframe
2) Cost of their technical skill
3) Cost of overhead and real estate
The other big cost driver is the rapid change in technology: computer, communications, radar, weapons. At some point the installed technology must be frozen. But, the added cost is the installed flexibility to adapt to upcoming changes. Including that flexibility is initially costly but in the long run very cost effective.
I am not sure about the information. But, I did manage many large Federal IT projects that worked in a very similar fashion. I was the overall integrator but I was working with off the shelf hardware and software that the Feds acquired. I then worked with technical staff, some mine, some the Feds, some provided by 3rd party software vendors, to make it all work together.
And... the big unknowns were change orders a year or two into the contract. New hardware, new versions of software, new "required" functionality. Those were all enormous cost escalators and were outside the control of the original hardware and software vendors and me the integrator.
I worked on a Federal project (tightly tied to commercial aviation) that continued for more than five years at 10x the original cost and NEVER did meet any of the original requirements. Eventually technology had moved so far ahead of the project that it was abandoned at a cost of Billions of $$ with little useful result.
Wasn't' there some talk that three aircraft could replace both the two "Air Force Ones" and the four E-4 (747-200 based) aircraft? Hours wise the E-4's still have some time left, but systems and parts wise they must be getting harder to maintain. Perhaps a few of the KC-46's will be outfitted with special comms gear, etc. as an E-4 replacement.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
POTUS: "I just slashed over $1 Bn from the new AF1 program!"
Air Force: "Whatcha talkin' bout Willis?"
Air Force: "Whatcha talkin' bout Willis?"
"To my knowledge I have not been told that we have that information," Colonel Pat Ryder, an Air Force spokesman, told reporters Wednesday when asked how Trump had managed to reduce the price for the new presidential plane. "I refer you to the White House," Ryder said. A White House spokesman didn't respond to repeated inquiries about Trump's comments.
If the cost indeed is reduced by $1 bn, then airplanes delivered will have less features on them.
If you really want to reduce the cost, just order 2 vanilla 747-8i. Maybe add GoGo so the president can stay in touch via Twitter. That way you don't need the extensive secure mission communications system, missile defense, aerial refueling, VIP suite, medical facilities, and who knows how many and what other features probably envisioned originally.
Better yet, just charter an airplane from an airline whenever you need it. You get what you pay for.
If you really want to reduce the cost, just order 2 vanilla 747-8i. Maybe add GoGo so the president can stay in touch via Twitter. That way you don't need the extensive secure mission communications system, missile defense, aerial refueling, VIP suite, medical facilities, and who knows how many and what other features probably envisioned originally.
Better yet, just charter an airplane from an airline whenever you need it. You get what you pay for.
You get what you pay for.
Boeing (and I presume Airbus) has long been known for offering substantial discounts from the sticker price, airline A pays more than airline B for the exact same aircraft regularly. It's a prestige thing for Boeing as much as anything, had Trump encouraged Airbus to enter the flying forehead into the competition in a serious manner, Boeing would have scrambled. Don't think for a minute he wouldn't have encouraged them to, if nothing else he's shown he not a slave to orthodoxy, and having the President on a Boeing is a prestige thing only.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess if he only sees it as First Class Plus or the World's Biggest Exec jet (and he loves that idea I'm sure) then he doesn't see the need for all the bells and whistles
Those whose job it is to think of the every eventuality and try and mitigate it whatever the cost will take a different view............
it's not just you get what you pay for - you get what you want.........
Those whose job it is to think of the every eventuality and try and mitigate it whatever the cost will take a different view............
it's not just you get what you pay for - you get what you want.........
World's Biggest Exec jet (and he loves that idea I'm sure)
I guess that Saudi prince never got his A-380 biz jet did he?
Whatever we do please don't let President Trump pick the décor! It might end up looking like one of those gaudy biz jets/Persian "gentleman's" establishments.
A Navy guy complaining about the decor of a gentlemens club? Did you criticize the dancer's shoes as well?
But yes, don't let Trump choose the interior.
But yes, don't let Trump choose the interior.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Boeing knows the tremendous marketing value of AF1 for what it is.